Why the media should apologize By: Roger Simon September 4, 2008 10:50 AM EST ST. PAUL, Minn. â On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry. On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry. We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked. We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice? Bad questions. Bad media. Bad. It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldnât be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols. Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: âIâm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And Iâve learned quickly, these past few days, that if youâre not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.â But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin? Let me count the ways: First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes mooseburgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture. Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it). Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: âPalin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. ⦠Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints.â Why go there? What trees does that plant? Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech. And why go beyond that? As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul. Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a âcloud of rhetoric.â Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates. Unless the candidates want us to. Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq. Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried. Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign. That is our job, and that is our duty. If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.) The official theme of the conventionâs third day was âprosperity,â but the unofficial theme was âthe media are really, really awful.â Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying âI am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody,â discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody. âIâd like to thank the elite media for doing something,â Huckabee said, âthat, quite frankly, I didnât think could be done: unify the Republican party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin.â And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media? To unify the Republican Party? No, that is simply the cynical, media view. Though as Lily Tomlin says, âNo matter how cynical I get, itâs just never enough to keep up.â I couldnât resist that. For which I am sorry.
No! They shouldn't apologize for asking tough questions of the right, they need to apologize for not being just as tough on their boy Obama.
I just want the media to ask Barak Obama just one question about his choice of Joe Biden. "If Obama's opposition to the Iraq war is the central issue of his campaign then why when picking a running mate based of foreign policy/miltary experience did he select a Senator who supported the invasion of Iraq?" Obama received the Dem nomination albeit by a hair based on two reasons-his race and his opposition to the Iraq War. He positioned Clinton as the "war candidate." Why then did he pick a veep with an Iraq war vote identical to Clinton? With all of the socialist, "change" agent, peacenick members of the Democrat's delegation to Congress and he picks a guy who's served in the Senate three decades and voted yea to troops in Iraq? The Dem's want to say picking Palin was a pandering pick? LMFAO.
They left a huge story like Obama's churchscapades unreported for many months and yelled "foul" and accusations of racism at anyone (like Sean Hannity of FoxNews) who dared look at their candidate with a modicum of suspicion. Even now, the mainstream media will not investigate and report on Obama's affiliations with the likes of Ayers and Rezco, clear threats to society both of them. Instead, their war cry is "focus on the issues" and anything else, like Obama's character, yikes, is out of bounds. Yet, they attacked this woman viciously from day one, about her hairdo, her daughter, her ex-brother in law, etc etc, demanding DNA test results to prove that she did have a sick child, accusing her of all sorts of things that have nothing to do with "the issues." Worst of all, they relished circulating and openly reporting on the air vile and unfounded rumors, like there was nothing else to do, let's gang up on her, she's really good and, therefore, a bonafide threat to our agenda. Disgusting hypocrites most of them!
It was reported on NBC that Obama has two father's. A black one and a white one. You can pass that along as well.
A STAR IS BORN By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN "With sass and wit, sarcasm and sincerity, courage and strength, Sarah Palin last night showed us a new model of female politician. Her family stories were genuine and real. Her commitment to special-needs children was moving. Her contempt for special interests was obvious. And her putdowns of Barack Obama's rhetoric and her praise of John McCain's character and achievements were welcome and well delivered. Many women look bad when they attack their opponents, too often seeming strident and shrill. But Palin was funny and irreverant, with a biting wit and a joy of combat that was exhilarating to watch. Sometimes she reminded us of the hockey mom she is. Other times, she was an American Margaret Thatcher - mobilizing humor and biting satire to mock the opposition. Where Hillary Clinton has but two speeds - full forward and stop - Palin displayed a range of rhetoric, emotion and language that sometimes evoked moving patriotism, at other times hilarious irony - and, frequently, a strong dose of common sense. If her style in attacking and mocking her opponent was Thatcher-esque, her range of rhetorical style was Rooseveltian. She is, in fact, one of the best public speakers in our politics today. Now the Democrats are stuck in a trap. They've demeaned, patronized and smeared a woman who's well on her way to becoming very, very popular. Her speech will create legions of fans; the Democratic smears of the last few days will create, for Obama, legions of enemies. This man who dedicated two years to stopping a woman from being president now has to answer for spending two months stopping one from becoming vice president - a task he hopes to accomplish using women's votes. Remember: The swing vote in this election are single moms. Just as the soccer moms dominated in 1996 and security moms in 2004, now unmarried women, mostly with children, will determine the outcome of the 2008 race. And they're finding in Sarah Palin an advocate whose life isn't far different from their own and whose priorities mirror theirs'. As withering in her contempt for the country-club elites of the Republican establishment as for the pandering of the Democrats, Palin stands in stark contrast to the inherited elitism of the Bushes, the Romneys and the Kennedys. She's a woman of the people. Was this a Republican attacking big oil? Was it the nominee for vice president of a major party who laced into earmarks and lobbyists and PACs? Yes it was - and how refreshing! In her sincere embrace of her family and her nonjudgmental introduction of her pregnant daughter, Palin won the hearts of many single moms. By evoking life in a modest, middle-class town, she established an empathy with voters akin to what Bill Clinton built when he ate at McDonalds'. How are the Democrats to live down their assaults on Sarah? How not to seem the enemies of the very voters they have to get? Strategically, Palin achieved the convention's core goal - to show how McCain is not a clone of George Bush, but a man of the people eager for change and demanding of reforms. Now the gap between Obama and McCain is not so wide. Now it is clear that they both stand for change. So now the fear of a naive and untried Obama leading the nation through perilous times at home and abroad can work to drive voters over the narrower synapse and get them to vote for McCain. Mission accomplished, Sarah!"
What is worse? A liar VP? or an idiot poster (like me) on ET? By the way I think McCain made perfect choice. More than 50% of California is Spanish speaking, each has 3-8 kids with many teen pregnancies. She is one of them at least that what republicans will try to shoot for. 1/2 of Dems would rather have black president than woman. 1/2 of Dems would rather have woman for president than black. McCain is trying to get a bite of the second half. here is a link Sarah Palin's fifth baby is her daughter's...?! http://current.com/items/89256331_sarah_palin_s_fifth_baby_is_her_daughter_s?xid=216